RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,925
Posts: 5,478,684
Members: 25,054
Currently online: 554
Newest member: DRayTrekkie

TrekToday headlines

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 11 2013, 12:01 AM   #271
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

So, wait...have we reached a point where we whine about fandom not whining enough?
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11 2013, 01:08 AM   #272
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

SalvorHardin wrote: View Post
So, wait...have we reached a point where we whine about fandom not whining enough?
I sure hope not - sounds like the formula for a perpetual whine machine. And if we're that far gone, I'm engaging the forum auto-detonate.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11 2013, 02:16 AM   #273
Locutus of Bored
Full Metal Bat'leth
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
To be more accurate, if Berman and Braga featured an actual starship underwater the internet would be in an uproar by the people now shrugging it off.
If?

Fluidic space doesn't count, the Delta Flyer is a shuttle, not a starship, and there were complaints about Xindi ships going underwater. I should know, I'm the one who made them.
It sounds like it's your endless complaining about things that are inconsequential to whether or not there's a good story and your arbitrary rules for what counts or not (that amazingly always support your argument) that are the problem then, not everyone else.

I'm curious, what is your basis for insinuating that it's the same people who complained about ships going underwater during Berman and Braga's tenure that are now giving JJ Abrams a pass on the same? I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but when I saw the ships underwater back then I thought it was a cool change of pace from the usual ships flying through space routine, and I feel the same way here. The technical issues never seemed bothersome to me, given all the other fantastical things the ships are capable of.

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
I said Berman and Braga. Braga had nothing to do with Insurrection, thereby explaining why fandom didn't get in outrage.
You can't be serious. Are you putting on an act or something? Your excuses are ridiculous.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11 2013, 03:18 AM   #274
sunburn800
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: daytona beach Fl
Send a message via Yahoo to sunburn800
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I don't care why she is under water i was just hoping she would stay there.
sunburn800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11 2013, 03:34 AM   #275
Jackson_Roykirk
Commodore
 
Jackson_Roykirk's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

sunburn800 wrote: View Post
I don't care why she is under water i was just hoping she would stay there.
Well, as cool as being under water is, I kind of like the idea of some space travel, too.
__________________

...With shoes that cut, and eyes that burn like cigarettes
With fingernails that shine like justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass...
Jackson_Roykirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11 2013, 09:09 AM   #276
JoeZhang
Vice Admiral
 
JoeZhang's Avatar
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Being a fake fan, I only care it will lead to some really cool visual effects after I've paid my money and am watching it in IMAX.
JoeZhang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11 2013, 03:35 PM   #277
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but when I saw the ships underwater back then I thought it was a cool change of pace from the usual ships flying through space routine, and I feel the same way here. The technical issues never seemed bothersome to me, given all the other fantastical things the ships are capable of.
I hate to resort to an overused internet posting cliché but--QFT.

Honestly, as someone who is a fan of both "hard s-f" and Trek, I urge everyone to A) not confuse the two and B) look elsewhere than Trek for depictions of truly plausible extrapolations of science.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11 2013, 07:28 PM   #278
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I agree with what you qft, but if you let every little thing pass, well, it's "death by a thousand cuts." Eventually it's drained of whatever made it special in the first place.
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11 2013, 10:54 PM   #279
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
It sounds like it's your endless complaining about things that are inconsequential to whether or not there's a good story and your arbitrary rules for what counts or not (that amazingly always support your argument) that are the problem then, not everyone else.
That's me alright

I'm curious, what is your basis for insinuating that it's the same people who complained about ships going underwater during Berman and Braga's tenure that are now giving JJ Abrams a pass on the same? I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but when I saw the ships underwater back then I thought it was a cool change of pace from the usual ships flying through space routine, and I feel the same way here. The technical issues never seemed bothersome to me, given all the other fantastical things the ships are capable of.
To be completely accurate, the original post I quoted was this:

ssosmcin wrote: View Post
You know, if the Enterprise was shown underwater in the pre-Abrams universe, with just a "who cares it looks cool" response, the uproar would be deafening, probably even from the people who are now shrugging it off.
To which I felt obligated to correct and state specifically that if Berman and Braga had done this "the uproar would have been deafening," as a means of mocking Trek fandom's irrational hatred of Berman and Braga which still lives strong to some degree today. After all, Berman and Braga use the term "Klingon Warbird" and I see some people using that as evidence that they are unfit to write Trek. Abrams uses the exact same term and no one cares.

As for the actual issue of starships underwater, from the technical point of view I couldn't care, as long as there's a story reason for it, I'm fine. Mind you, in the case of the Xindi ships, how they came to discover it's submersible abilities was some pretty weak logic. The conversation basically went like this.

"Let's take this ship underwater."
"Can it go underwater?"
"Nobody told us it couldn't."

So provided STID provides a logical story reason for the Enterprise going underwater I'll accept it.

You can't be serious. Are you putting on an act or something? Your excuses are ridiculous.
My angry/irrational fanboy routine usually is an act, but this particular example has an element of truth to it. I was discussing Berman and Braga, and someone cites ann example to argue against me from something Braga had nothing to do with, which to me seemed similar to Trek Fandom's other nagging habit to claim both Berman and Braga were responsible for everything that went on in post Roddenberry, pre Abrams Trek, when in fact Braga had authority over very little of it. For the record, Braga was only responsible for Generations, First Contact, seasons 5 and 6 of Voyager, and the first three seasons of Enterprise. That's it.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.